Another importer alleged June 7 that the Commerce Department improperly relied on competitors’ unsupported claim that they, as domestic producers, could provide enough of an input -- aluminum rod, this time -- to cover the importer’s needs. As a result, the importer had been forced to pay “tens of millions” of dollars in Section 232 tariffs, it said (Prysmian Cables and Systems, USA v. U.S., CIT # 24-00101).
toarticlessource documents
Search Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).
Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Biden administration's proposed Section 301 tariff hikes on various Chinese goods (see 2405220072) would continue to skirt World Trade Organization commitments and strip the global economy of international tribunals, which are key to curbing "persistent protectionism," said George Washington Law School professor Steve Charnovitz in comments on the proposed tariffs.
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
Importer MTD Products filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade June 5 claiming its spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines from China were improperly denied Section 301 exclusions by CBP (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 22-00174).
A company that imports air fryers brought a complaint to the Court of International Trade on June 5, arguing that its fryer are not “cooking stoves, ranges or ovens” but rather fall under the relevant “other” category (Sensio Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00152).
The following are short summaries of recent CBP NY rulings issued by the agency's National Commodity Specialist Division in New York:
The Court of International Trade on May 30 denied the government's out of time motion to extend its time to respond to importer Atlas Power's requests for admissions for all discovery in a customs suit. Judge Stephen Vaden said it denied the motion since relief is available under CIT Rule 36, which "includes a mechanism for a party to request that an admission be withdrawn or amended" (Atlas Power v. U.S., CIT # 23-00084).